TEXAS COMPUTER STOLEN FROM POLICE DEPARTMENTTexarkana Gazette: News and Classifieds From Texarkana, Texas/ArkansasNews

Former Clarksville police chief on trial
Wednesday, May 18, 2005 8:57 AM CDT

By DIONNE VICTOR
Texarkana Gazette

NEW BOSTON, Texas-A Department of Public Safety sergeant testified Tuesday that documentation on a stolen computer was changed to cover up a theft in which a former police chief is implicated.

Former Clarksville Police Chief Jimmy Townsend went on trial this week in the 102nd District Court with District Judge John F. Miller Jr. presiding. During opening questioning by Red River County District Attorney Val Varley, the arresting officer, DPS Sgt. Randy Haltom, told the seven-woman, five-man jury information about the computer had been changed in the police department's evidence log after Haltom served a search warrant at Towsend's home in May 2004.

The case involves a 2002 Gateway laptop computer, which was held in the Clarksville Police Department's evidence room as part of an identity theft seizure. Townsend was arrested in May 2004 and charged with theft of property over $1,500 and less than $20,000 by a public servant.

Haltom told jurors the first time he looked at the evidence log in April 2004 the Gateway Computer was listed on it along with the serial number and the number of a 2002 identity theft case.

In between the case number and the computer description, Haltom said "return to owner," was printed in parenthesis in black writing.

Haltom testified that after he confiscated the computer from Townsend's home, he noted a change in the evidence log where the parentheses were still present, but the "return to owner," was blacked out and replaced with "borrowed by J.T." and "suspect died," Haltom said.

Haltom said he first received information in October 2003 that several objects, including a gun and narcotics, were missing from the evidence closet. He said it also was during this time that he first contacted Townsend in reference to the stolen items.

Shannon Crow, who is identified as Townsend's niece or daughter, also supplied Haltom with pictures that identified the missing computer and its serial number, Haltom said. Crow was given a polygraph test before she gave Haltom the pictures. She passed.

Haltom testified that after he received this information he continued to investigate the Red River County case in Bowie County in order to avoid any conflict of interest.

"I tried to keep it as quiet as possible because it was such a touchy investigation," said Haltom.

He also filled out an affidavit for a search warrant where he listed the place to search for the computer, what he was looking for, the picture of the place to be searched, directions to his home and probable cause. The search warrant was signed by 202nd District Judge Leon Pesek Jr.

When Haltom served the search warrant he said that Townsend was not at home, but his girlfriend was. He said he also found the computer lying on the same table that was on the picture.

During Varley's questioning of Haltom, a tape of Haltom questioning Townsend at the Clarksville Police Department was also played. On the tape Townsend told Haltom that he was only borrowing the computer and had received permission from one of two former police chiefs. He said he couldn't remember which one it was.

"As long as they knew where it was they didn't see a problem with it," said Townsend about the computer. On the tape, he said he had the computer in his possession for about a year and a half.

Townsend said he had borrowed the CrimeStoppers computer before, but returned it later.

During the time of the tape Haltom also repeatedly questioned Townsend and asked why he wasn't telling the truth about the computer.

"I never intended to steal it, that's why I signed the book," Townsend said on the tape.

Varley asked Haltom if he knew the price of the computer, to which he answered about $1,659 based on evidence from Citibank, which loaned the money to buy the computer.

During cross-examination of Haltom, Mark Lesher, Townsend's lawyer, questioned the legality of the search warrant, citing the time period in between when Pesek signed it on May 20, 2004, and when records showed it was filed.

He continuously asked Haltom about the discrepancies in the date, and said Haltom provided testimony before that it was filed on May 27, but his records showed it was filed on June 24, 2004.

Lesher also brought into account the time limitations between the time it was signed and the time it should be filed. He said that the order stated that it should be filed within three days.

Lesher also questioned the price range that Haltom gave of the computer cost, saying that since 2002 the computer has depreciated.

He noted that the computer originally cost $1,194 when it was ordered in June 2001, and the cost of the printer was $129. The printer was not seized at the time Haltom served the search warrant. This price adds up to $1,323, less than the minimum $1,500 which goes along with the charge, Lesher said. He also questioned Haltom about the printer. The printer was not found at Townsend's residence.

"Nowhere is there probable cause about the printer, but yet the search warrant was for the computer and printer," said Lesher to Haltom.

Testimony will resume at 9 a.m. today.